- - - > So what if Obama was a member of Islam? Would it really matter?
Obviously not to 80%
of America who care so little about their spiritual faith that they fail
to attend any kind of
religious gathering. Oh, but let me take that back; I was forgetting that
the weekly trek to the
Shopping Mall is a sign of religious veneration for the followers of the
God Mammon. <----
http://mediabloodhound.typepad.com/weblog/2008/03/story-of-the--1.html
Op-Ed Column:
The Facts, Keith Olbermann and Rabid Hillary ****lls
Leading into the Texas and Ohio primaries, The New York Times re****ted
that "the campaign of
Sen. Hillary Clinton is unlea****ng what one Clinton aide called a 'kitchen
sink' fusillade
against Obama." Meanwhile, the Clinton camp was busy working the refs:
leveraging a Saturday
Night Live sketch that ridiculed the media for alleged favoritism of Sen.
Obama, Hillary Clinton
cried foul as she and her campaign were simultaneously in the process of
heaving said sink.
Clinton and her inner circle fueled the worst kind of xenophobia: "No,
there is nothing to base
that on. As far as I know," Clinton told 60 Minute's Steve Kroft, when
asked if she thought
Obama was a Muslim. And while the source of The Drudge Re****t's well-timed
photo of Obama in
traditional Somali garb (flaming those Muslim rumors) officially remains
unconfirmed, the
Clinton camp's history of leaking information to Drudge has been
do***ented. To this day, the
campaign has never issued a flat, unequivocal denial that the photo was
sent by one of its
members. (Mission accomplished: a December 2007 Wall Street Journal/NBC
News poll showed that 8%
of Americans thought Obama was a Muslim; a new WSJ/NBC poll reveals that
the number of Americans
who believe this falsehood has risen to 13%.) Concurrently, as the media
failed to effectively
challenge Clinton on her refusal to release her tax forms, it featured
story after story on
Clinton's unrelated and obfuscating counter-punch to any inquire into her
tax records: Obama's
connection to indicted businessman Antoin Rezko, about which after
extensive digging by every
major media outlet, not one has confirmed any legal wrongdoing on the part
of Sen. Obama.
(Welcome to Obama's Whitewater.)
The strategy worked like a charm. The Clinton camp is nothing if not
schooled in such politics.
With a cowed media focusing lopsided scrutiny on Obama days before the
March 4 primary,
Clinton's camp landed one shot below the belt after another. Effective and
politically shrewd?
Sure. Cheap, cynical and sleazy? You bet.
Since the March 4 primaries alone, Clinton press secretary Howard Wolfson
has absurdly compared
Obama to Ken Starr; Sen. Clinton has done Sen. McCain's bidding, breaking
an unofficial rule
among same-party candidates by asserting she and Sen. McCain have crossed
the
"commander-in-chief threshold" while Obama has not; and, of course, this
past week one of
Clinton's chief fundraisers, Geraldine Ferraro, said, "If Obama was a
white man, he would not be
in this position," then claimed reverse racism when people objected to her
racist or, at bare
minimum, intentionally racially divisive and factually ignorant comments.
And if anyone thinks
Ferraro's statements weren't tactical salvos - part of Hillary's "Archie
Bunker strategy for
PA," to quote my consistently straight-shooting friend, Will Bunch - then
they're not paying
attention or are willfully ignorant of her campaign's modus operandi.
The worst you can say for the Obama camp during the same period is that
then foreign policy
advisor, Samantha Power, jet-lagged and upset right after the results in
Ohio and having
witnessed firsthand how Clinton won the state, called her a "monster"
during an interview,
screwing up by then attempting to keep the comment off the record without
having stated that
request beforehand. She resigned immediately, publicly and profusely
apologizing to Sen.
Clinton. Moreover, the media failed to address what drove Power's comment:
Clinton's
self-evident willingness to do anything to win in Ohio, but also, taking
into account Power's
expertise on foreign policy and human rights, quite likely her knowledge
of Clinton's egregious
record on war and innocent civilian lives as well.
Meanwhile, Sen. Clinton initially offered only a tepid and - make no
mistake about it -
calculated response, saying she "did not agree" with Ferraro's comment and
found it
"regrettable." Clinton later finally denounced Ferraro's statements in
clearer terms: "I
rejected what she said and I certainly do repudiate it." But where did she
happen to utter this
delayed reaction? Before a gathering of black newspaper publishers at the
National Newspapers
Association meeting. Just another example of Clinton's track record of the
most cynical
political expediency. Moreover, when Ferraro's comments first made news,
Clinton campaign
manager Maggie Williams had the Orwellian chutzpah to insinuate that it
was somehow Obama who
was playing the race card in this instance. But this tactic shouldn't have
surprised anyone
because it's exactly what Williams had done during the
Drudge/Obama-in-African-garb photo flap.
It's worth noting, too, that Maggie Williams is Clinton's newly appointed
African-American
campaign manager; so far, the Clinton camp's two highest profile uses of
Williams was to send
her out to blunt its own execution of racially divisive strategies, in
which Williams made two
of the most absurd counter-attacks on race this campaign has seen. And
while the Clinton camp
and her more frothing surrogates make the claim that Obama is the one
playing the race card in
these incidents, it's also an insult to African-Americans across the
country, as it implies they
are somehow being duped, that they're incapable of arriving at their own
conclusions as they
witness these historically coded racial strategies unfold, and that
Obama's soaring rise in the
black vote, which in Mississippi reached 92%, is not, to some degree, a
result of being
genuinely and understandably disgusted by the racist or, at the very
least, exceedingly racially
divisive actions of the Clinton campaign.
At the end of the day, the Clinton camp's approach, led by such swell
human beings as chief
strategist Mark Penn - CEO of PR firm Burson-Marsteller, which has
represented Blackwater, Shell
Oil and makers of the child-killing Aqua Dots toy - is to argue Sen.
Obama's unelectability in
the general election by doing everything possible right now to make him
unelectable. In fact,
Penn let slip this strategy in a conference call with re****ters Thursday.
Said Penn, "We believe
that [the Pennsylvania primary result] will show that Hillary is ready to
win, and that Sen.
Obama really can't win the general election." Moments later, when a
re****ter followed up on
Penn's comment, press secretary Wolfson tried to remake reality, revealing
the kind of
shameless, bald-faced mendacity that has been the cornerstone of the Bush
administration. "Mark
did not say that," Wolfson lied. Except, well, Mark did. And at least one
of the re****ters taped it.
Indeed, the delegate count does not add up for Sen. Clinton unless she can
convince more of the
superdelegates that Obama is unelectable. To do that, Clinton and her
campaign - and their
win-at-all-cost ****lls (not to be confused with honest and responsible
Clinton sup****ters) -
have shown their willingness to potentially ruin Sen. Obama's chances
against Sen. John McCain
now that mathematically this is the only way for her to win the
nomination.
This is neither opinion nor veiled partisan****p. Merely a simple fact
based on math and the
actions of the Clinton campaign, so despicable on so many occasions now as
to call into question
whether its strategy includes this Plan B: if Clinton cannot win the
nomination, then doing
everything in her campaign's power to tear Obama down and thus swing the
general election in
McCain's favor, preserves Clinton's chances at a re-election bid four
years from now. In other
words, destroying Obama is a win-win for Team Clinton, whether for this
November or the one in
2012. This is the deeply cynical yet hardly far-fetched idea that the
Clinton camp, based on its
own actions, has single-handedly stoked in the minds of citizens who are
free to formulate their
own thoughts. They see it, they smell it - political expediency in its
crudest form. After being
backed into a corner, Clinton has proven she's willing to hand over the
election to McCain, who,
for starters, has shown he's determined to attack Iran, uphold "legal"
torture, and preserve
this White House's sustained war on civil liberties, the Constitution and
international law, as
well as permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent. There's no
hiding the fact any longer
that Clinton cares less about the continued death, destruction and misery
of human beings at
home and abroad than she does about winning.
Which brings me to Keith Olbermann's special comment on Wednesday.
Like many intellectually honest observers of this race, Olbermann had
simply grown disgusted by
the Clinton camp's scorched earth approach. As he said in prefacing his
editorial, his opinion
Wednesday night was not in any way an endorsement of Obama or some kind of
official pox on the
Clinton campaign. Rather, Olbermann did what he has done for years now in
covering the Bush
administration: he weighed the record, cut through the doublespeak and
targeted lies, hypocrisy
and underhanded acts.
Contrary to the empty invective the Taylor Marshes and Larry Johnsons of
this race spewed the
following day, Keith Olbermann's critique of the Clinton campaign was
wholly valid and based in
reality. Fair, honest and factual. In claiming otherwise, Marsh, Johnson
and their
win-at-all-cost lackeys rooted their attacks on Olbermann (Marsh launching
hers before Olbermann
delivered the special comment) not on the basis of facts but ad hominem
sniping.
Overnight, Olbermann was branded an unprofessional hack and misogynist.
The next day, Johnson wrote, "In August of 2006 I praised Keith Olbermann
as the 21st Century’s
version of Edward R. Murrow. As a result, Ed Schultz banned me from his
radio program because I
dared praise Keith. Sadly, fame and acclaim have maimed Keith’s brain, and
he has become just
another partisan hack....Olbermann either does not realize he has become a
joke or he does not
give a ****. Either way, Keith is not worth a minute of your time. Same
for his sponsors."
It's interesting to note that Johnson also links to Marsh's view on
Olbermann's special comment,
the one she wrote prior to Olbermann's delivery of it. In her pre-emptive
attack, titled "Keith
Olbermann Is No Edward R. Murrow," Marsh declared, "Olbermann is now the
Bill O'Reilly of MSNBC.
A big giant head railing against the first viable female candidate in U.S.
history." After
actually watching the special comment, Marsh, specifically on Olbermann,
only had this to say
Wednesday night:
As for Olbermann, he started by thanking the Clintons, then ripped
the scab off of every
primary wound that's come before today. At one point the pompous anchorman
actually squealed
"David Duke," while doing the Obama camp's greatest hits, resurrecting
them all, including Bill
Clinton in South Carolina. The delivery was so overwrought and dramatic at
one point I was
almost convinced he was going to start talking about Jesus, then ask for
cash.
Early the next morning, Marsh posted a video of Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright
Jr., Obama's former
pastor, about which she said, "The wing-nuts have been rolling this stuff
out as well." Uh,
shouldn't that tell her something?
Though that wasn't enough for Marsh: later that same morning, she
dedicated another post to
Obama's former preacher. Salivating over how this dirt had gone from Fox
News to Politico to
then, as of Thursday, ABC News (of course now it's everywhere), an
exuberant Marsh cried,
"Praise the Lord, and pass the political ammunition. We're in it now,"
while linking to the ABC
story. Never mind this new kitchen sink item has nothing whatsoever to do
with substantive
issues, or that it's insinuation - by association Barack Obama is a
reverse racist and dislikes
white people - is despicable GOP/Rove-approved mudslinging, exactly the
kind we should expect
from John McCain if Obama wins the nomination but not from his own
Democratic rival. What's
more, Marsh simultaneously summoned the Olympian cognitive dissonance to
claim, "Every thing
said and every Clinton sup****ter is now seen through the prism of race,"
and, "This is a
nightmare. A Democratic nightmare, especially since Obama and his campaign
are intent on making
divisiveness the signature remembrance of his primary campaign, extending
through a part of
culture that is always incendiary: religion."
Further into this post, Marsh again reveals the gutter into which she's
descended and appears
comfortable to dwell: "Senator Obama may call Reverend Wright 'an old
uncle' with whom he
doesn't always agree, but I doubt that once the wingnuts and talk radio
gets through blasting
him across America that voters will feel the same." Yes, those wingnuts.
She then added, with
accompanying Fox News video featuring that ever-respectable "journalist"
Sean Hannity: "Hannity
has been on this for quite some time. Rush [Limbaugh] started today. It's
only the beginning,
which Reverend Wright's convenient retirement will not staunch."
Hannity. Rush. Marsh. Nice company. Is there a more direct example of how
loathsome this latest
attack is than to note Hannity and Rush are all over it? Marsh aligns
herself with the some of
the most fascist, duplicitous and hateful propagandists our the nation has
ever produced and
sends her readers directly to Fox News for the truth, but it's Keith
Olbermann who's lost his
credibility?
This has become a farce of a farce. The suspension of disbelief to follow
such logic is
insurmountable.
Just as Olbermann mentioned his reluctance to deliver his special comment
on Clinton, I was at
least somewhat apprehensive to enter this fray as well, as MediaBloodhound
is also not in the
endorsement or cheerleading business. And neither, too, is this an
endorsement of Sen. Obama.
Throughout this campaign, I have called out the media for unfair or
insipid critiques and
observations of both Senators Clinton and Obama. But in not endorsing
either, I am also not
beholden to anything but the facts. And if anyone wants to tell me that,
on the whole, Hillary
Clinton has run the more honest, principled and less corrosive campaign,
then I would be lying
to my readers and to myself if I didn't say that such a belief at this
stage in the race is
either ignorant, willfully ignorant, delusional or patently mendacious.
Moreover, I've done a great deal of research into the mainstream media's
biggest failure in this
campaign - *****sing these two candidates' respective senatorial voting
records - and found,
overall, Sen. Clinton's to be far worse. Specifically on matters of war
and the protection of
innocent civilian lives around the world.
We all know about the Iraq War authorization vote. Yet we never hear these
days about her
revealing September 2007 vote for the Kyle-Lieberman amendment, which Sen.
Jim Webb, a decorated
veteran, called "Cheney's fondest pipe dream" and about which he warned
could be "interpreted"
to "declare war" on Iran. As for protecting innocents in war zones,
Clinton unconscionably voted
against an explicit amendment that proposed to ban the use of cluster
bombs - one of the most
deadly, indiscriminate and inhumane weapons on the planet - in civilian
areas. What's worse, the
underlying factors driving Clinton's votes on such matters of life and
death, which I recently
investigated for a forthcoming article in another publication, are even
more appalling than
these votes appear to be on the surface (more on that soon).
While Hillary Clinton has accused Obama of Rovian tactics in this race,
the facts simply bear
out that it is her campaign that has unquestionably depended more on tried
and true - and
cynical and divisive - tactics that Rove and the Republicans have employed
for years. One
overarching strategy in particular: accuse your opponent of the very thing
you yourself are
exhaustively perpetrating. She has done this on nearly every issue, from
race to NAFTA to the
shadiness of campaign contributors.
Before this race, people once relied on blogger/radio host Taylor Marsh
and former CIA
agent/counterterrorism expert Larry Johnson for their reality-based
*****sments of the Bush
administration. But now they attack Obama, and anyone who doesn't fall in
lockstep behind the
Clinton campaign, with the same kind of smear tactics they once decried.
In one of Larry Johnson's latest assaults on Obama, he takes a direct page
from the GOP,
claiming the Illinois senator is in cahoots with terrorists because he
received a campaign
contribution of $200 in 2001 from former Weather Underground member
William Ayers, who's now a
distinguished professor of education at the University of Chicago. Says
Johnson, "As Democrats
and Independents weigh who they want to run against John McCain in the
fall, answer this
question. Can you sup****t a candidate who is friends with terrorists? Can
you sup****t a
candidate who takes money from terrorists?" The Wa****ngton Post (h/t
Oliver Willis) has noted
how lame this attack is:
But the Obama-Ayers link is a tenuous one. As Newsday point out,
Clinton has her own, also
tenuous, Weatherman connection. Her husband commuted the sentence of a
couple of convicted
Weather Underground members, Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans, shortly
before leaving office
in January 2001. Which is worse: pardoning a convicted terrorist or
accepting a campaign
contribution from a former Weatherman who was never convicted?
To be clear, neither of these superficial connections deserves any play in
the Democratic
presidential nomination race. But Johnson has pounded Obama's loose tie to
Ayers as supposed
evidence of his unelectability while willfully ignoring or being ignorant
to Sen. Clinton's own
connection to the very same group. Thus, Johnson proudly leads the
Swiftboat pack on this one.
As of Thursday night, he had the same video of Obama's former pastor
sitting atop his blog that
Marsh has been prominently featuring on hers.
Repeatedly and hypocritically, Johnson has accused Obama of Rovian
tactics, only to turn around
the next moment and dredge up Rovian talking points as proof of why Obama
should not be nominated.
Everyone, of course, has a right to sup****t either candidate openly, or to
sit on the sidelines
and distill what is actually going on in this race without claiming a
horse in this race. And
there are certainly plenty of intellectually honest Clinton sup****ters,
unlike Marsh and
Johnson, who have respectfully and honorably backed their candidate, some
who have even
acknowledged or spoken out about their disappointment in the overall tenor
and tactics of their
candidate's campaign but who still believe she would make a better
president.
But when you start attacking a candidate on the basis of sleazy
assertions, bogus ties and ad
hominem digs, when you become exactly what you once professed to stand
against - and while you
even have the prerogative to jump off the reality-based ****p in doing so -
you officially
relegate your views (at least pertaining to this race) to spin. You are no
more reliable than
the most duplicitous campaign spokesperson.
Plain and simple, you've become a ****ll. Less interested in fair play,
facts and substantive
ideas than in saying or doing anything to give your candidate an edge.
You've forfeited all
credibility outside your choir. Apart from your followers who eagerly lap
up each nasty bit
directed at Obama, your opinions on this race have been rendered
meaningless.
It's as though Hillary capos like Marsh and Johnson learned nothing from
the Bush years. Nothing
about the danger of making judgments based on emotion rather than fact or
of vilifying those who
dissent from their point of view. Nothing about the intrinsic inner rot of
a movement in which
winning totally trumps the methods of how you get there and strong
leader****p is defined as how
unscrupulously you're willing to go to destroy anyone in your path.
So it has come to this: Keith Olbermann, one of the only network
journalists to do his job
during the Bush years, who has consistently and courageously told it like
it was on the Iraq
War, Katrina, illegal wiretapping, torture, habeas corpus, extraordinary
renditions, missing
White House emails, disappeared CIA interrogation tapes, telecom amnesty,
civilian casualties in
Lebanon, global warming - on every single issue this administration has
suffused with
obfuscation and doublespeak - is now being called washed up for holding
the Clinton campaign to
the same standards of fair play and truthfulness.
This is how far ****lls like Marsh and Johnson are willing to sink.
Everyone and anyone is fair
game. Either blindly goose-step behind the Clinton bandwagon or be
trampled beneath it.
I proudly stand with Keith Olbermann. I proudly stand not with Obama, nor
with Clinton, nor with
Marsh or Johnson, but with the facts as they present themselves to me.
I prefer to think for myself. It's quite liberating.
()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * *
____________________________________________________________________________________
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + +
Finally, the campaigns of 1793 and 1794 set Clausewitz on the path of
recognizing war as a
political phenomenon. Wars, as everyone knew, were fought for a purpose
that was political,
or at least always had political consequences. Not as readily apparent
was the implication
that followed. If war was meant to achieve a political purpose, everything
that entered into
war — social and economic preparation, strategic planning, the conduct of
operations, the
use of violence on all levels — should be determined by this purpose, or
at least accord
with it. Even though soldiers had to acquire special expertise, and
function in what in some
respects was a separate world, it would be a denial of reality to allow
them to carry on
their bloody work undisturbed until an armistice brought their political
employer back into
the equation. Just as war and its institutions reflected their social
environment, so every
aspect of fighting should be suffused by its political impulse, whether
this impulse was
intense or moderate. The appropriate relation****p between politics and war
occupied
Clausewitz throughout his life, but even his earliest manuscripts and
letters show his
awareness of their interaction.
The ease with which this link — always acknowledged in the abstract —
can be forgotten in
specific cases, and Clausewitz’s insistence that it must never be
overlooked, are
illustrated by his polite rejection toward the end of his life of a
strategic problem set by
the chief of the Prussian General Staff, in which every military detail of
the opposing
sides was spelled out, but no mention made of their political purpose. To
a friend who had
sent him the problem for comment, Clausewitz replied that it was not
possible to draft a
sensible plan of operations without indicating the political condition of
the states
involved, and their relation****p to each other: ‘War is not an independent
phenomenon, but
the continuation of politics by different means. Consequently, the main
lines of every major
strategic plan are largely political in nature, and their political
character increases the
more the plan applies to the entire campaign and to the whole state. A war
plan results
directly from the political conditions of the two warring states, as well
as from their
relations to third powers. A plan of campaign results from the war plan,
and frequently - if
there is only one theater of operations - may even be identical with it.
But the political
element even enters the separate components of a campaign; rarely will it
be without
influence on such major episodes of warfare as a battle, etc. According to
this point of
view, there can be no question of a purely military evaluation of a great
strategic issue,
nor of a purely military scheme to solve it.’
Everyman’s Library, 1993 ISBN: 0679420436 On war /by Clausewitz, Carl
von, 1780-1831.
Knopf, 1993. From the introduction by Peter Paret, Pg7
_____________________________________________________________________
The U-2 is a jet-powered reconnaissance aircraft specially designed to fly
at high altitudes
(i.e., above 70,000 ft [21 km]). It was used during the late 1950s to
overfly the Soviet
Union, China, the Middle East, and Cuba; flights over the Soviet Union,
the primary mission
for which the plane was designed, ended in 1960 when a U-2 flown by CIA
pilot Gary Powers
was shot down over the Soviet Union. This event was a major political
embarrassment for the U.S.
http://www.espionageinfo.com/Te-Uk/U-2-Spy-Plane.html
Soviet Prime Minister Khrushchev's reaction to the overflights which
were discovered
just before a summit conference in Paris with President Eisenhower: "It
was as though the
Americans had deliberately tried to place a time bomb under the meeting" .
. ."How could
they count on us to give them a helping hand if we allowed ourselves to be
spat upon without
so much as a murmur of protest?" The only solution was to demand a formal
public apology
from Eisenhower and a guarantee that no more overflights would take place
. . .
But the apology Khrushchev was looking for would not come. Despite
having trespassed
on the Soviet Union for the past four years with scores of flights by both
U-2's and heavy
bombers, the old general still could not say the words, it was just not in
him. . . A time
bomb had exploded, prematurely ending the summit conference. . .
Back in Wa****ngton, the mood was glum. The Senate Foreign Relations
Committee was
leaning toward holding a closed door investigation into the U-2 incident .
. . In public,
Eisenhower maintained a brave face. He "heartily approved" of the
congressional probe and
would 'of course fully cooperate,' he quickly told anyone who asked. But
in private he was
very troubled. For weeks he had tried to head off the investigation. His
major concern was
that his own personal involvement in the overflights would surface,
especially the May Day
disaster. Equally, he was very worried that details of the dangerous
bomber overflights
would leak out. The massed overflight may in fact, have been one of the
most dangerous
actions ever approved by a president.
pg. 51-55 ~Body of Secrets; Anatomy of the Ultra Secret National Security
Agency
James Bamford
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of
the progress of
human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims,
have been born of
earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating,
all-absorbing, and for the time
being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does
nothing. If there is
no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and
yet depreciate
agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want
rain without
thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its
many waters."
"This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may
be both moral and
physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a
demand. It never did and
it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and
you have found out the
exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and
these will continue
till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The
limits of tyrants are
prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. In the light of
these ideas, Negroes
will be hunted at the North, and held and flogged at the South so long as
they submit to those
devilish outrages, and make no resistance, either moral or physical. Men
may not get all they
pay for in this world; but they must certainly pay for all they get. If we
ever get free from
the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal.
We must do this by
labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and if needs be, by our lives and the
lives of others."
http://www.buildingequality.us/Quotes/Frederick_Douglass.htm
Frederick Douglass, 1857
- - - - - -> More political discussion continues at
http://www.politicsusaweb.com/
----------------------
This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in
my efforts to advance
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In
accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for
research and educational
purposes.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you
wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own
that go beyond 'fair
use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
